Jamaican political parties are often said to lack imagination. But over the past decade the Jamaica Labour Party has consistently come up with new and innovative ways to alienate voters and damage its electoral credibility. The gang of 5, the western 11, the local government boycott, the Mike Henry and Abe Doubdab affairs, the committee for the rebuilding of the JLP – not even the PNP in its wildest fantasies could have envisioned such a litany of Labour self-destruction. But none of the JLP’s actions have been quite so senseless as its march on the Jamaica Observer in protest against columnist Mark Wignall’s ‘persistent vulgar attacks’ on party leader Edward Seaga.

By definition logical actions have a purpose. But what was the goal of this march? To persuade the Observer’s editors to stop printing Mr. Wignall’s columns? To convince Mr. Wignall to start doctoring his polls in favour of Mr. Seaga? No sane person could imagine that the demonstration would be generally construed as anything but an attempt to intimidate the press. To many it brought back memories of Michael Manley’s infamous ‘Next time, next time!” 1977 march on the Gleaner. And it certainly lends credence to a popular view that the JLP’s political tactics are two decades out of date. Whatever its original intentions, the ironic result of the JLP march will probably be to make Mark Wignall the most popular Jamaican columnist since Morris Cargill, who was himself the main target of Mr. Manley’s ire 23 years ago.

Some JLP sources say the march was merely intended to vent the anger of Tivoli residents frustrated by Mr. Wignall’s sustained campaign against their leader. They claim the march was not planned by the JLP hierarchy but was a spontaneous action of Tivoli activists. “You must understand that these people love Mr. Seaga like a father and they took Mark Wignall’s comments as a kind of attack on their family. The march did not start with any directive by Mr. Seaga and was not endorsed by the JLP as an organization. It came from the grass roots. But of course many of our executive members felt bound by feelings of loyalty to support their colleagues in a show of solidarity. We don’t all necessarily agree with what they did. But then our reality is not their reality. And we can understand their personal emotional reaction. They needed to get their resentments out of their systems. The march was not an attack on press freedom. The demonstrators just wanted to cuss off Wignall and feel better.”

Well, there are always three sides to a story - my side, your side and the real side. But many people find it difficult to believe that a newspaper columnist is capable of stirring up such unprompted passions among inner city political activists, who are not exactly famous for their literary leanings. As another political columnist observed “It would be nice to think that a fellow writer has such power to stir up the people! But in my experience Jamaicans don’t take the written word that seriously, especially in the ghettos. When I tell people from such areas I’m a columnist they usually reply that they only listen to radio and watch TV.”

One thing is certain, a leader must take responsibility for the actions of his followers. If Mr. Seaga authorized the march he showed a lack of judgement bordering on the delusional. If it was carried out against his wishes, he has obviously lost control of his underlings and the tail is wagging the dog.

Many claim that nothing in the JLP happens without Mr. Seaga’s approval. But some Labour party supporters argue that this is more a perception than reality. If Mr. Seaga is so all powerful, they ask, how is it that Mr. Seaga was overruled by the party’s central executive about the 1998 parish council elections, when the part fielded a slate of candidates against Mr. Seaga’s objections? And they point out that even though Mr. Seaga made a publicly televised statement telling delegates to support Audley Shaw and not Pearnell Charles in the deputy leader election, Mr. Shaw still got less than 50% of the vote and only won by a plurality. Could either event have happened were he as omnipotent as his critics claim?

Of course Mr. Seaga has no one but himself to blame for public perceptions that he is a dictatorial leader. He is the one who boasted about there being only ‘one don’. And many who have seen the party at work do not buy ‘the JLP is a democracy’ argument. According to a JLP candidate in the 1997 general elections

“You cannot be a member of the JLP unless you pay homage to leader. His deputies literally cower before him and melt like butter in his presence. I have seen men who are big shots in public practically tremble in front of Seaga. It is very strange. You talk with these men one and one and they are very sensible and see both Mr. Seaga’s strengths and his weaknesses. They acknowledge that the party needs to make changes in the way it goes about things. But when you hear them in public they sound like an idiotic bunch of lapdogs. There seems to be some sort of infectious disease among the JLP’s deputy leaders. It is a real study in irrationality. Maybe a psychologist is needed to explain it. You almost begin to wonder if they are fed something when they go to Belmont road!”

His personal experience agrees with Mr. Wignall’s Stone poll findings that Mr. Seaga is a liability to his party. “When I campaigned he was the party’s greatest stumbling block on the ground. Most people felt that, and still feel in my view, that the JLP could not win any election with Mr. Seaga as leader. Even many diehard PNP supporters are now concerned about the matter. Party affiliation does not blind them to the reality that parliamentary democracy cannot function without a credible opposition.”

Even his enemies acknowledge that Mr. Seaga has devoted his entire adult life to serving his country. And many still feel that in his heyday Mr. Seaga was the most capable leader this country has known. But the bottom line reality is that Mr. Seaga is now 70 and the JLP has lost 6 elections in a row since 1985. Can one imagine a football team without a title for 15 years not changing the manager? Or a cricket team keeping the same captain through 6 consecutive test series defeats?

Mr. Seaga is like a former heavyweight champion long past his prime who refuses to stop fighting and blames the referee and judges for his defeats. But he is not only hurting himself and his legacy, he is holding a country to ransom and slowly helping to undermine its democratic institutions. changkob@hotmail.com